| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20070108120719.16d4674e.bgilbert@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:07:19 -0500
From: Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@...cmu.edu>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Failure to release lock after CPU hot-unplug canceled
If a module returns NOTIFY_BAD to a CPU_DOWN_PREPARE callback, subsequent
attempts to take a CPU down cause the write into sysfs to wedge.
This is reproducible in 2.6.20-rc4, but was originally found in 2.6.18.5.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Load the test module included below
2. Run the following shell commands as root:
echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
The second echo command hangs in uninterruptible sleep during the write()
call, and the following appears in dmesg:
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.20-rc4-686 #1
-------------------------------------------------------
bash/1699 is trying to acquire lock:
(cpu_add_remove_lock){--..}, at: [<c03791eb>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
but task is already holding lock:
(workqueue_mutex){--..}, at: [<c03791eb>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (workqueue_mutex){--..}:
[<c01374b9>] __lock_acquire+0x912/0xa34
[<c01378f6>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x8a
[<c037900d>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xf6/0x2b8
[<c03791eb>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
[<c012dc27>] workqueue_cpu_callback+0x10b/0x20c
[<c037c687>] notifier_call_chain+0x20/0x31
[<c012a907>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x8/0xa
[<c013aa10>] _cpu_down+0x47/0x1f8
[<c013abe7>] cpu_down+0x26/0x38
[<c0296462>] store_online+0x27/0x5a
[<c02935f4>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x25
[<c0190da1>] sysfs_write_file+0xb3/0xdb
[<c01602d9>] vfs_write+0xaf/0x163
[<c0160925>] sys_write+0x3d/0x61
[<c0102d88>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
-> #1 (cache_chain_mutex){--..}:
[<c01374b9>] __lock_acquire+0x912/0xa34
[<c01378f6>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x8a
[<c037900d>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xf6/0x2b8
[<c03791eb>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
[<c015dc0d>] cpuup_callback+0x29/0x2d3
[<c037c687>] notifier_call_chain+0x20/0x31
[<c012a907>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x8/0xa
[<c013a869>] _cpu_up+0x3d/0xbf
[<c013a911>] cpu_up+0x26/0x38
[<c010045e>] init+0x7d/0x2d9
[<c0103a3f>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
-> #0 (cpu_add_remove_lock){--..}:
[<c01373ba>] __lock_acquire+0x813/0xa34
[<c01378f6>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x8a
[<c037900d>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xf6/0x2b8
[<c03791eb>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
[<c013abd2>] cpu_down+0x11/0x38
[<c0296462>] store_online+0x27/0x5a
[<c02935f4>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x25
[<c0190da1>] sysfs_write_file+0xb3/0xdb
[<c01602d9>] vfs_write+0xaf/0x163
[<c0160925>] sys_write+0x3d/0x61
[<c0102d88>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by bash/1699:
#0: (cache_chain_mutex){--..}, at: [<c03791eb>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
#1: (workqueue_mutex){--..}, at: [<c03791eb>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
stack backtrace:
[<c0103dcd>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
[<c01043f4>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[<c01044a6>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
[<c0135c99>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x5f/0x68
[<c01373ba>] __lock_acquire+0x813/0xa34
[<c01378f6>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x8a
[<c037900d>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xf6/0x2b8
[<c03791eb>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
[<c013abd2>] cpu_down+0x11/0x38
[<c0296462>] store_online+0x27/0x5a
[<c02935f4>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x25
[<c0190da1>] sysfs_write_file+0xb3/0xdb
[<c01602d9>] vfs_write+0xaf/0x163
[<c0160925>] sys_write+0x3d/0x61
[<c0102d88>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
=======================
Exiting the bash process after the first echo command instead results in
the following:
=====================================
[ BUG: lock held at task exit time! ]
-------------------------------------
bash/1547 is exiting with locks still held!
2 locks held by bash/1547:
#0: (cache_chain_mutex){--..}, at: [<c03791eb>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
#1: (workqueue_mutex){--..}, at: [<c03791eb>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
stack backtrace:
[<c0103dcd>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
[<c01043f4>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[<c01044a6>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
[<c01358ba>] debug_check_no_locks_held+0x80/0x86
[<c01217ed>] do_exit+0x6bf/0x6f5
[<c0121893>] sys_exit_group+0x0/0x11
[<c01218a2>] sys_exit_group+0xf/0x11
[<c0102d88>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
=======================
If I can provide any other information to help track this down, please let
me know.
--Benjamin Gilbert
8<---------------------------------------------------------->8
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/cpu.h>
static int cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
void *data)
{
int cpu=(int)data;
switch (action) {
case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
printk(KERN_DEBUG "Refusing shutdown of CPU %d\n", cpu);
return NOTIFY_BAD;
case CPU_DEAD:
printk(KERN_DEBUG "CPU %d down\n", cpu);
break;
}
return NOTIFY_OK;
}
static struct notifier_block cpu_notifier = {
.notifier_call = cpu_callback
};
int __init mod_start(void)
{
int err;
err=register_cpu_notifier(&cpu_notifier);
if (err)
return err;
return 0;
}
module_init(mod_start);
void __exit mod_shutdown(void)
{
unregister_cpu_notifier(&cpu_notifier);
}
module_exit(mod_shutdown);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists